Is Rohit Sharma the second best ODI opener of all time?

[Teja.]

Rohit’s better at single handedly eating games when he gets going though which is argue is more valuable.

 

[Daemon]

Warner’s not better than Sharma.

 

[h_hurricane]

If he's behind Tendulkar then the best he can be is third.

You are right given that Tendulkar almost never took first strike against new ball.

 

[harsh.ag]

Warner’s not better than Sharma.

Not right now, but for a while he was.

 

[ankitj]

Warner is probably better than him though. Because he scores faster initially, so it hurts less if he gets out for a 30-40.

Not right now, but for a while he was.

So he is and is not?

 

[harsh.ag]

Heh. Overall career.

 

[Malcolm]

Warner is probably better than him though. Because he scores faster initially, so it hurts less if he gets out for a 30-40.

This.
Warner strikes at almost 100 in PP1 while Rohit strikes at around 65.

 

[Teja.]

Can a statsbro please help with deets on SR of both batsman till they reach 30/40.

I’m sure Warner is better itr but want to see by how much.

 

[Burner]

Warner is a myth in ODIs. He had a good year before the ban and that was it. Definitely does not belong to be mentioned alongside Sharma as of now.

 

[stephen]

Just a stat update:

Average and strike rate of batsmen in the top 3:
Last 5 years: 39 @ 85
5 years before: 35 @ 80
00s: 32 @ 76
90s: 33 @ 68

 

[stephen]

An opener 50% better than the average today has an average of 60.

An opener 50% better than the average in the 00s/90s had an average of 47.

 

[Dan]

I think there's two different questions here, with different answers.

1. Is he the second best ODI opener of all time? Maybe.
2. Is he a lock to partner Sachin in an ODI ATG XI? Nah.

With Q1, I'd say that I'm starting to lean further and further towards the trademark Spark view that ODI stats are meaningless and ultimately we should place more emphasis on big performances and delivering in WCs. I mean, in Fakhar and Imam, Pakistan have two ODI opening bats who average 50+. If we're being nice, they're nowhere near Mark Waugh on a bad day. If we're being honest, they're garbage.

Rohit is an unquestionable ATG when he's smashing around second string pace attacks on flat decks - nobody goes big like him. And that's not detracting from his ability - his game is perfectly tuned to playing modern JAMODIs and he's miles better at it than anyone else on the planet. And it's not like he's a slouch in less JAM-my ODIs anyway. But I think it's reasonable enough for people to argue that a Gilchrist or a Jayasuriya or an Anwar or a Lara or a Waugh are still ahead of him.

Even if I settled on him as the #2 GOAT, I still probably wouldn't pick him, though - the benefits to your second ODI opener being able to 'keep or bowl far outweighs the extra benefit you get from Rohit imo.

 

[harsh.ag]

Sachin bowls already.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Jayasiruya has 300+ wickets. His darts are definitely a big factor in him getting selected.

 

[ankitj]

Screw the ATG XI. No such fictitious XI is ever going to take the field. Every thread doesn't need to descend into that discussion hence bringing in secondary and tertiary disciplines unnecessarily.

Whether Rohit Sharma is second best ODI opener is an interesting question in itself.

 

[OverratedSanity]

It is hard to meaningfully compare him with players from the '80s and '90s as the absolute numbers that players put up these days are ludicrous, however, like Kohli, Sharma is also comfortably outperforming his peers from the same era (guys like Guptill, Dhawan, Warner etc.) so he is definitely in the conversation.

Sure, but that only tells us that rohit is the best today. Which we already know.

I mean, in tests, any post wwii ATG batsman who plays a meaningful sample of games averages 50-60. Across 70 years of cricket, that number hasn't spiked or dipped massively. Maybe a few too many batsmen in the early 2000s started ballooning their averages but that stil isn't remotely the same as what's happened in odis. Tests have remained relatively similar but odi rules have changed enormously to the point of them almost morphing into a separate format and that's reflected in the stats.

 

[stephen]

Comparing players with their contemporaries is a decent way off evaluating them though and Rohit is one of the three top openers of his era.

 

[morgieb]

He's definitely getting close. I kinda agree he'd struggle to get into a World ATG XI as he's a bit too similar to Sachin in style, but I can't think of anyone who's clearly ahead at this point. His ability to go big is basically unparalleled.

 

[vcs]

Sure, but that only tells us that rohit is the best today. Which we already know.

I mean, in tests, any post wwii ATG batsman who plays a meaningful sample of games averages 50-60. Across 70 years of cricket, that number hasn't spiked or dipped massively. Maybe a few too many batsmen in the early 2000s started ballooning their averages but that stil isn't remotely the same as what's happened in odis. Tests have remained relatively similar but odi rules have changed enormously to the point of them almost morphing into a separate format and that's reflected in the stats.

Haha, then we go with the boring answer that ODI batsmen post 2010 cannot be compared to those from the '80s and '90s because the rule changes and bats have essentially turned it into a different game. But where's the fun in that..

I know we should keep formats separate and all that but Rohit's Test failure will also be brought up 10 years from now in this discussion. If you ask me to pick between two ODI ATGs with similar ODI credentials, I'm going to take the one who did better in Tests.

 

[NUFAN]

Rohit is the best Indian ODI opener ive seen play. Big scores and higher gear puts him ahead of Ganguly and co.